In the movie "Animal House" Otter defends Delta House from charges of drinking and debauchery by arguing along the lines of "You can't attack Delta House without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the university. You can't attack the university without attacking the whole educational system. You can't attack the educational system without attacking America, and I'm not going to stand here and let you tear down our great country!" https://www.youtube.com...

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

At 10/22/2015 4:42:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:In the movie "Animal House" Otter defends Delta House from charges of drinking and debauchery by arguing along the lines of "You can't attack Delta House without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the university. You can't attack the university without attacking the whole educational system. You can't attack the educational system without attacking America, and I'm not going to stand here and let you tear down our great country!" https://www.youtube.com...

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

While I don't want to start bickering about this interpretation... Otter should be speaking before the SCOTUS. It was masterful. (pre-law, pre-med - whats the difference)

Hillary used the Otter Defense repeatedly. Security at Benghazi was the responsibility of security professionals. Security professionals are hard working and incredibly dedicated. So security at Benghazi cannot be criticized without attacking all the hardworking professionals who are dedicated to providing security.

It's a fallacy of composition. In fact, you can charge malpractice without attacking the whole profession.

I don't get what you want her to say? Clearly security was inadequate, but that's easy to say in retrospect. It's a judgment call whether the failure to provide additional security is an unfortunate mistake or an error that reflects on Hilary's leadership. Clearly there was no negligence or anything criminal....we found that out the first go around. There's literally nothing Hillary could say that would satisfy people who want her scalp.

Clearly you think she failed in her duties, fine don't vote for her. These hearings are overtly a waste of time even if you think Benghazi is a big black mark on Hilary's record. So glad I'm paying for this circus...

At 10/22/2015 4:42:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:In the movie "Animal House" Otter defends Delta House from charges of drinking and debauchery by arguing along the lines of "You can't attack Delta House without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the university. You can't attack the university without attacking the whole educational system. You can't attack the educational system without attacking America, and I'm not going to stand here and let you tear down our great country!" https://www.youtube.com...

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

This is a specious analogy, devoid of merit, without any basis in reality. What was going on in Animal House was an obvious farce where individuals who were clearly up to nefarious purposes were caught (in some respects, literally) with their pants down, and made a farce of proceedings against them, in a university setting.

The State department is not a fraternity, does not operate like a fraternity, is not organized or structured like a fraternity, and has nothing in common with a fraternity other than that the state department is a group of people as is a fraternity. The state of China is also a group of people. My mother's book club is also a group of people. A Mexican drug cartel is a group of people. The Mormon Tabrinacale Choir is a group of people. Surely, you would make no claim that China, my mother's book club, a Mexican drug cartel, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are alike.

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

Good thought but, IMHO, is the wrong analogy. The correct analogy would be: Hillary's argument was like pulling a Penn and Teller: "Everyone see the pretty lady going into the box? Oh yeah, you guys know what's about to happen don't you?" Teller walks off stage and grabs a chainsaw, hands it to Penn; Penn starts it and begins showboating by swinging the chainsaw around the stage and BAM! "OH GOD TELLER, YOUR HAND!!!"

Completely threw you off didn't it? Are you even paying attention to the poor little lady in the box? Or are you paying attention to poor Teller with the missing hand?

At 10/22/2015 4:42:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:In the movie "Animal House" Otter defends Delta House from charges of drinking and debauchery by arguing along the lines of "You can't attack Delta House without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the university. You can't attack the university without attacking the whole educational system. You can't attack the educational system without attacking America, and I'm not going to stand here and let you tear down our great country!" https://www.youtube.com...

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

It's an old politician's trick. Cicero did it while excoriating Catiline, equating his desire to overthrow the aristocratic senate with a desire to destroy Rome and burn the entire world. Hyperbole and misdirection are hallmarks of good rhetoric, and I would expect no less from Clinton; she's a consummate politician, if nothing else.

It's also done by the right, especially when it comes to the military and Israel. And by the left when it comes to the poor. I don't blame the politicians at all; I blame the fact that most Americans are too stupid, undisciplined, and downright lazy to see through this sort of thing. The democratic aspects of our government are very much garbage in, garbage out.

I don't blame the politicians at all; I blame the fact that most Americans are too stupid, undisciplined, and downright lazy to see through this sort of thing. The democratic aspects of our government are very much garbage in, garbage out.

At 10/23/2015 1:27:55 AM, Raisor wrote:I don't get what you want her to say? Clearly security was inadequate, but that's easy to say in retrospect. It's a judgment call whether the failure to provide additional security is an unfortunate mistake or an error that reflects on Hilary's leadership. Clearly there was no negligence or anything criminal....we found that out the first go around. There's literally nothing Hillary could say that would satisfy people who want her scalp.

Clearly you think she failed in her duties, fine don't vote for her. These hearings are overtly a waste of time even if you think Benghazi is a big black mark on Hilary's record. So glad I'm paying for this circus...

At 10/23/2015 1:27:55 AM, Raisor wrote:I don't get what you want her to say? Clearly security was inadequate, but that's easy to say in retrospect. It's a judgment call whether the failure to provide additional security is an unfortunate mistake or an error that reflects on Hilary's leadership. Clearly there was no negligence or anything criminal....we found that out the first go around. There's literally nothing Hillary could say that would satisfy people who want her scalp.

Clearly you think she failed in her duties, fine don't vote for her. These hearings are overtly a waste of time even if you think Benghazi is a big black mark on Hilary's record. So glad I'm paying for this circus...

Like even if you think it's true, obviously she's not going to prostrate herself for forgiveness, no new information is coming out of this, there's nothing criminal. The only outcome the committee can hope to achieve is media attention, which is totally inappropriate use of a special committee. Its an obvious witch hunt...just incredibly inane.

It also seems kind of desperate. Gop latched onto it last election and it didn't go anywhere, it's old news reprocessed.

At 10/23/2015 1:27:55 AM, Raisor wrote:I don't get what you want her to say? Clearly security was inadequate, but that's easy to say in retrospect. It's a judgment call whether the failure to provide additional security is an unfortunate mistake or an error that reflects on Hilary's leadership. Clearly there was no negligence or anything criminal....we found that out the first go around. There's literally nothing Hillary could say that would satisfy people who want her scalp.

Clearly you think she failed in her duties, fine don't vote for her. These hearings are overtly a waste of time even if you think Benghazi is a big black mark on Hilary's record. So glad I'm paying for this circus...

Like even if you think it's true, obviously she's not going to prostrate herself for forgiveness, no new information is coming out of this, there's nothing criminal. The only outcome the committee can hope to achieve is media attention, which is totally inappropriate use of a special committee. Its an obvious witch hunt...just incredibly inane.

It also seems kind of desperate. Gop latched onto it last election and it didn't go anywhere, it's old news reprocessed.

Lol I agree, we don't need a committee to remind us that the government is flawed and people make bad decisions...if that was criminal, then everyone be damned.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

I do blame Hillary and any other politician who use lying as a means of getting elected. During the hearings this week, we learned that the night of the attack she e-mailed Chelsea that she knew it was a planned terrorist attack by an affiliate of al Qaeda, and e-mailed officials in Egypt and others the next day of the same thing. She then told families of the victims two days later the lie that it was a due to the video and promised to arrest the video maker who caused the deaths. Susan Rice repeat the "spontaineous demonstration" lie five days later in five media interviews, and Obama repeated it after that in a UN speech. It was before the election, and Obama was claiming that terrorism had been defeated, so revealing a coordinated terrorist attack would have undercut the campaign theme than Obama was dead and terrorism defeated.

Also revealed was that over 600 requests for increased security had been made by diplomats in Libya, and all were ignored. Hillary said that she never saw any of them. If true, she is disqualified from holding any office for the most gross incompetence imaginable.

Saying that it is okay for politicians to lie and it's the voters' fault for believing them is the ultimate in blaming the victim. Watch some video of Hillary and Obama repeating the "it's was about the video" lie for a demonstration of how to tell a lie with practiced conviction. Every politician caught in such deliberate and profound lies ought to be run out Washington, not admired for their clever skills in deception.

At 10/26/2015 3:39:32 AM, RoyLatham wrote:I do blame Hillary and any other politician who use lying as a means of getting elected. During the hearings this week, we learned that the night of the attack she e-mailed Chelsea that she knew it was a planned terrorist attack by an affiliate of al Qaeda, and e-mailed officials in Egypt and others the next day of the same thing. She then told families of the victims two days later the lie that it was a due to the video and promised to arrest the video maker who caused the deaths. Susan Rice repeat the "spontaineous demonstration" lie five days later in five media interviews, and Obama repeated it after that in a UN speech. It was before the election, and Obama was claiming that terrorism had been defeated, so revealing a coordinated terrorist attack would have undercut the campaign theme than Obama was dead and terrorism defeated.

Also revealed was that over 600 requests for increased security had been made by diplomats in Libya, and all were ignored. Hillary said that she never saw any of them. If true, she is disqualified from holding any office for the most gross incompetence imaginable.

Saying that it is okay for politicians to lie and it's the voters' fault for believing them is the ultimate in blaming the victim. Watch some video of Hillary and Obama repeating the "it's was about the video" lie for a demonstration of how to tell a lie with practiced conviction. Every politician caught in such deliberate and profound lies ought to be run out Washington, not admired for their clever skills in deception.

I don't think the claim it was about the video was an outright lie. My understanding is that they thought it was al Qaeda because al Qaeda claimed responsibility right away. Subsequently al Qaeda withdrew that claim, at which point there was ambiguity about the cause of the attacks. I've no doubt that the administration chose the narrative they preferred, but that isn't an outright lie its political spin. Still kind of sh-tty but that's basic politics that every politician, ceo, whatever has done. Feel free to be angry about it and stand against that sort of politicking but it is t an outright lie (if my characterization is correct).

As for claiming she never saw the security requests, my understanding is that she was aware of the requests but did not personally handle them. I guess I don't know how the state department works but that doesn't seem crazy to me...that's how tiered management works. I haven't heard that 600 number though, if that's true that's insane. What would the timeframe be for that? It seems crazy that 600 requests could even be generated over the course of a few years,it'd be sending a new request every day for several years. That does sound kind of shady...

I'd be curious to know what the 600 "requests" actual means. I found the transcript, but it's just an assertion by someone on the committee...

Is that 600 emails? That doesn't sound surprising. Is it 600 individual requests with subsequent correspondence?

Anyways it is clear that the requests should have been more seriously addressed and the poor security was the fault of senior management. I'm just of the mind that there are a lot of opportunities for mistakes like these...this is an example of an error in management but I just don't see how the magnitude is worthy of dominating the news cycle. It's one data point in many, and I think the electorate agrees. The only people that get worked up about the issue are people who already hate The democrats and are happy for more things to be angry about. The left is willing to forgive Hillary of anything (just as the right is willing to forgive GWB of anything) and independents/centrists are focused on substantive issues. Benghazi says very little in terms of what the country will look like with one president vs another. There are many more issues that overshadow the management failings of benghazi

At 10/26/2015 5:25:32 AM, Raisor wrote:I don't think the claim it was about the video was an outright lie. My understanding is that they thought it was al Qaeda because al Qaeda claimed responsibility right away. Subsequently al Qaeda withdrew that claim, at which point there was ambiguity about the cause of the attacks. I've no doubt that the administration chose the narrative they preferred, but that isn't an outright lie its political spin. Still kind of sh-tty but that's basic politics that every politician, ceo, whatever has done. Feel free to be angry about it and stand against that sort of politicking but it is t an outright lie (if my characterization is correct).

There are two separate issues. The first issue is whether it was a planned terrorist attack or whether it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand, and the second issue who sponsored the attack. The story that it was a spontaneous demonstration was a clear deliberate lie. The attack used mortar fire from positions previously sited and the trajectories precomputed. Demonstrators don't carry mortars, let alone pre-site them. We've already had testimony that the deputy ambassador called Hillary the night of the attack, disclosed that information, and said it was clearly planned. The Defense Department (Panetta) and the CIA (Petraeus) both testified they had established it was a planned attack unrelated to the video by the day after the attack. Hillary, Susan Rice, and the president all said the video was the spontaneous cause well after the fact of it being a planned attack was well-established. They gave with story without qualification. Hillary told the families of the victims there was no evidence of anything but the video being the cause, even though the mortar fire and the opinions of DoD and the CIA had been in evidence to the contrary. That's a bare-faced lie.

As to who sponsored it, that's not an important issue. The campaign theme was that organized terrorism had been defeated. Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group typically claim credit for any terrorist act. So if they were operating solely on the Al Qaeda claim, they should not have.

Understand that Ambassador Stevens e-mails were only turned over to the Committee last week. The reason past committees failed and the present Committee has been so slow is that the Administration has been deliberately stonewalling. The 600 requests were in e-mails. It came out that Ambassador Stevens did not have Hillary's e-mail address, and if he had it he could not have used it because such communication is classified. It also came out that Stevens was considering resigning due to the wretched security.

As for claiming she never saw the security requests, my understanding is that she was aware of the requests but did not personally handle them. I guess I don't know how the state department works but that doesn't seem crazy to me...that's how tiered management works. I haven't heard that 600 number though, if that's true that's insane. What would the timeframe be for that? It seems crazy that 600 requests could even be generated over the course of a few years,it'd be sending a new request every day for several years. That does sound kind of shady...

The 600 e-mails were over two years. It should not be surprising that people in fear for their lives are persistent about the issue. One of the Committee members printed them out and stacked them on her desk.

Bush was noted for cross-examining the people to whom he delegated. Bob Woodward's book on the run up to the Iraq invasion documented that. Bush asked all the right questions, that wasn't the problem. Obama and Hillary have no management experience and don't know how to do it. Obama never met once with his VA secretary after appointing him, and the VA deteriorated.

At 10/23/2015 1:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:The State department is not a fraternity, does not operate like a fraternity, is not organized or structured like a fraternity, and has nothing in common with a fraternity other than that the state department is a group of people as is a fraternity. The state of China is also a group of people. My mother's book club is also a group of people. A Mexican drug cartel is a group of people. The Mormon Tabrinacale Choir is a group of people. Surely, you would make no claim that China, my mother's book club, a Mexican drug cartel, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are alike.

The point of an analogy is not that the elements are identical, but that there relationship is illustrated. Whatever the object being defended (a fraternity, the State Department, China, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), the Otter Defense is that a particular narrow attack (the fraternity had toga parties, the State Department did not provide security in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11) is answered by pretending the narrow accusation is really a broad indictment of the whole system (American education, or all the security professionals in government). The defense is bogus because the criticism is not about the generality, but about a specific part. The American embassy in Paris has 400 marines defending it. That's redundant security and no one questions it. The problem was that 600 requests for added security in Libya were ignored.

Adding security would have undercut the campaign story that terrorism had been defeated, so there was no significant threat.

At 10/23/2015 1:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:The State department is not a fraternity, does not operate like a fraternity, is not organized or structured like a fraternity, and has nothing in common with a fraternity other than that the state department is a group of people as is a fraternity. The state of China is also a group of people. My mother's book club is also a group of people. A Mexican drug cartel is a group of people. The Mormon Tabrinacale Choir is a group of people. Surely, you would make no claim that China, my mother's book club, a Mexican drug cartel, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are alike.

The point of an analogy is not that the elements are identical, but that there relationship is illustrated. Whatever the object being defended (a fraternity, the State Department, China, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), the Otter Defense is that a particular narrow attack (the fraternity had toga parties, the State Department did not provide security in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11) is answered by pretending the narrow accusation is really a broad indictment of the whole system (American education, or all the security professionals in government). The defense is bogus because the criticism is not about the generality, but about a specific part.

Except that's not what Clinton was saying in the hearings. There were outrageous attacks against people who were not there to defend themselves, and Clinton was not acting as the representative of those people, as Otter was in Animal House.

Likewise, the committee's point was to attack Hillary, specifically. The debacle in Animal house was not intended to attack Otter, specifically.

I understand that you're trying to draw the parallel, but it's just not going to work, for the reasons I've already said, and for the additional reasons why the analogy doesn't hold.

The committee was an entirely different creature than what was going on in Animal House.

The American embassy in Paris has 400 marines defending it. That's redundant security and no one questions it. The problem was that 600 requests for added security in Libya were ignored.

Adding security would have undercut the campaign story that terrorism had been defeated, so there was no significant threat.

We also have a defense agreement with France which allows us to do things with security in France that we cannot do in other (and specifically non-NATO countries). No similar agreement existed with Libya. So, your cited fault is one that was beyond Clinton's control to remediate.

I understand the impetus to blame Clinton because she was at the top, but what came of those hearings was nothing even remotely close to an indictment of her. It was Trey Gowdy doing everything he could do to cling to what dissipating illusion of legitimacy remained with regard to the committee's activities.

At 10/22/2015 4:42:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:In the movie "Animal House" Otter defends Delta House from charges of drinking and debauchery by arguing along the lines of "You can't attack Delta House without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the university. You can't attack the university without attacking the whole educational system. You can't attack the educational system without attacking America, and I'm not going to stand here and let you tear down our great country!" https://www.youtube.com...

Asked why security was so poor at Benghazi, Hillary responds that the US has diplomats in many countries, and everyone knows many assignments are dangerous. That doesn't respond to the specific, but implies that inquiries are aimed at insulting all diplomats for taking dangerous assignments. She interprets any criticism of the military's role in Benghazi as an attack on the whole military, and she just won't stand there and let the whole military be torn down. It's a repeating theme of responding to specifics with generalities.

You should sing Happy Birthday to your next President. And yes Hillary is going to win the election in 2016.

At 10/26/2015 2:26:07 PM, YYW wrote:Except that's not what Clinton was saying in the hearings. There were outrageous attacks against people who were not there to defend themselves, and Clinton was not acting as the representative of those people, as Otter was in Animal House.

Hillary said that she left security to security professionals. She said she did not see a single one of the 600 requests for additional security at Benghazi because that was not her job. She could not receive any e-mail from Ambassador Stevens because she did not have any means to receive classified e-mail, so everything had to go through her staff, and her staff filtered it all out. Her defense against the claim that this was mismanagement was that any attack against her way of running security this way was that criticism was an attack against security professionals in general. That's the Otter defense. She was a miserable, incompetent manager who cut off effective communications from her Ambassador and then said no criticism was valid,

Likewise, the committee's point was to attack Hillary, specifically. The debacle in Animal house was not intended to attack Otter, specifically.

If a criminal is put on trial, is that a personal attack on the criminal or an attempt by the justice system to determine the truth? Hillary admitted to lying for political gain. She told the relatives of the victims it was due to a video, when she knew that story was false. She lied for political gain, but then claims that politics should not enter into it.

We also have a defense agreement with France which allows us to do things with security in France that we cannot do in other (and specifically non-NATO countries). No similar agreement existed with Libya. So, your cited fault is one that was beyond Clinton's control to remediate.

If it is beyond Clinton's control to provide security, then she had no business sending Stevens to his death. There was a CIA operation in Benghazi that could have provided the needed security, whether Libya approved it or not. No provision was made to send in US military support. Hillary's idea was stay completely oblivious to what was going on and to leave it to others, then lie about it.

I understand the impetus to blame Clinton because she was at the top, but what came of those hearings was nothing even remotely close to an indictment of her. It was Trey Gowdy doing everything he could do to cling to what dissipating illusion of legitimacy remained with regard to the committee's activities.

The hearings showed (1) she didn't care in the slightest about security; (2) she deliberately kept herself isolated from facts by not having personal contact with Stevens; (3) her motivation was to support the campaign story that terrorism was defeated, even though it was not; (4) she lied to keep the campaign story going until after the election.

I agree that the lying and stonewalling is likely to work, because it has the full support of the liberal press. That doesn't make it right.

At 10/29/2015 11:58:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:Hillary said that she left security to security professionals. She said she did not see a single one of the 600 requests for additional security at Benghazi because that was not her job. She could not receive any e-mail from Ambassador Stevens because she did not have any means to receive classified e-mail, so everything had to go through her staff, and her staff filtered it all out. Her defense against the claim that this was mismanagement was that any attack against her way of running security this way was that criticism was an attack against security professionals in general. That's the Otter defense. She was a miserable, incompetent manager who cut off effective communications from her Ambassador and then said no criticism was valid,

Let's review the facts: (1) it is not actually known how many requests for additional security there were; (2) it is not known how many of those requests she actually saw; and (3) therefore it is not reasonable, despite Trey Gowdy's insistence, that Clinton "ignored" anything. You can't "ignore" something you never saw.

Beyond that, and again, we've talked about this, there are literal treaties that we have with other countries that govern what we can and cannot do in our embassies. That is highly classified, extremely contentious, and the sort of thing that Republicans who ran the committee were incompetent to do. (I know more about international law than Trey Gowdy, and, likely, many of the people on that committee, for example, and I am no expert.)

What I can tell you is that, with regard to an earlier issue you brought up, there are reasons why we can do things in France, that we cannot do in other countries, like Libya. What we can do is defined by the specific treaties that govern what kind of personnel we can have in our embassies, how many, etc. Those issues are regulated because many other countries do not trust us, and don't want us engaging, for example, in covert operations through our embassies (even though virtually every country does).

So that's the issue. That's why the CIA guys who were there, were initially covered up, or tried to be covered up. They shouldn't have been there. So, the choice is between "do we close the embassy" and potentially create an international incident, or "do we break the treaty and put security forces there" and potentially create an international incident, or "do we do nothing" and not risk creating an international incident.

In the first hearing, you sort of saw glimpses of that series of issues. It was conspicuously absent from what Gowdy was doing, namely, because he is an incompetent zealot whose sole purpose was crusading against Hillary Clinton.

So, the point is that your criticism really only holds if you ignore the policies and procedures of how the state department works. I think it's fair to re-assess the issue of whether the United States should maintain a diplomatic presence in countries known to harbor terrorism without defense agreements that allow us to militarize (or substantially defend) our embassies. That's the real issue from all of these proceedings. What's not an issue is what Clinton specifically did, because there is no rational world in which this comes down on her. The only way it does is if she can supervene protocol and international law, which obviously she can not, which means that your criticism of her is without merit.

If a criminal is put on trial, is that a personal attack on the criminal or an attempt by the justice system to determine the truth? Hillary admitted to lying for political gain. She told the relatives of the victims it was due to a video, when she knew that story was false. She lied for political gain, but then claims that politics should not enter into it.

There are times when Congress engages in criminal investigations (e.g. Watergate), but this is not one of them. This was, at least ostensibly, a "fact finding" mission thing. Hillary did not lie for political gain, either. Nor did she admit to that. You're misinterpreting what was said. (I have no doubt that you're just saying what Fox reported, but if you go back and look at the video, towards the last two hours of the hearings, when Gowdy was questioning her, you will find that what you said is not true.) You will also find that your assumption that the video story was for political gain requires a reckless coloring of the facts, which is to say, there are legitimate reasons why that story was told: like preserving diplomatic ties with Libya, trying to avoid another international incident, and various other reasons that have little to do with domestic politics.

I think that the tendency among GOP analysts is to view these sets of facts through the sole lens of "what can we say about these circumstances to make Clinton look like the worst person in the world." What's not going on is any genuine inquiry into why what was done, was done, and that has been acknowledged by both Republicans and Democrats.

If it is beyond Clinton's control to provide security, then she had no business sending Stevens to his death. There was a CIA operation in Benghazi that could have provided the needed security, whether Libya approved it or not. No provision was made to send in US military support. Hillary's idea was stay completely oblivious to what was going on and to leave it to others, then lie about it.

Let's, again, review the facts: the only way that Clinton, as you indicated "sent Stevens to his death" is if she (1) knew of the imminence of a coming attack; (2) put him in that position; and (3) did nothing to prevent the situation which she knew was imminent. That is not what happened. Before the incident, there was an insufficient indication of the threats we faced in Libya, so, we didn't know what was going to happen.

That raises a legitimate issue of why the US does not have a better intelligence apparatus in Libya, and many other places in the world, although the reasons are geopolitical as much as they are pragmatic and logistical. It's really hard to maintain the kind of intelligence networks in areas like that, because the people there tend to hate us, therefore it is really hard to recruit people to spy for us. Because we didn't have enough assets on the ground to figure out what was coming, that's why this happened. It's an intelligence failure, not a State Department failure...and that much should be manifestly obvious.

The hearings showed (1) she didn't care in the slightest about security; (2) she deliberately kept herself isolated from facts by not having personal contact with Stevens; (3) her motivation was to support the campaign story that terrorism was defeated, even though it was not; (4) she lied to keep the campaign story going until after the election.

What cause do you see to investigate/prosecute Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi attacks?

Libya was in a state of chaos thanks to the UN's bombing efforts in that country...it's not hard to list Chris Stevens as a casualty of war.

Do we prosecute Congress, SECDEF and POTUS over every soldier's death?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?